Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)/Archive 01

Contents 1 When to use native names? 2 SCO 3 Name Change : "common name" —> "most common use" 4 Pele 5 jihad elian 6 Problems with naming a series of articles 7 specific naming convention vs. common names 8 Names for ethnic communities living outside the boundaries of their own ethnic state 9 Conflict with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) 9.1 Thoughts on possible revision 9.2 Discussion 9.2.1 What conflict? 10 Proposed rule change 11 Advice for Grand Street (Brooklyn)? 12 Union Jack 13 List of exceptions 14 Does this policy apply to places? 15 Naming conventions for Infoboxes and Persondata boxes 16 Initials in names 17 Common name vs. correct name 18 Titles 19 Search engine test 20 "Names and titles" exception 21 Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name 22 Personal nicknames 23 Does "common names" refer to "most common usage?" 24 TV shows 25 Currency name guidelines 26 Conflict 27 Jordan (model) -> Katie Price -> Kate André

[edit] When to use native names?

I've been considering how to apply this rule in the case of certain fairly obscure ethnic groups and languages whose native names differ from the "most common" name (I was thinking primarily of Tu people and Li people (Monguor and Hlai, respectively), although there are probably other examples). If we stipulate that Tu and Li are the most commonly used forms in English, I'm still not sure that this is the best location for the articles. The notable thing about these cases is that "Tu" and "Li" are hard to search for. There are many other things called by those names, including short words in various languages and abbreviations. If we go by "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" they might well be better off with Monguor and Hlai. So, the proposed change or clarification that I am considering would be something like:

Favour the indigenous name (autonym) for a group of people or a language, if it means all three of the following conditions:

1) Even the most commonly-used name of the group is fairly obscure and rarely used in English. This definitely not meant to apply to peoples like Tibetans, Iroquois, etc. who have a widely-known English name.

2) The autonym appears in a respectable publication somewhere outside of Wikipedia. Not just something that you've heard someone say, etc.

3) The more commonly-used name is difficult to search for, e.g. because of similarity to other words.

I'm not really sure if condition #3 is really necessary, but removing it would make for a more radical proposal. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia:naming conflict elaborates somewhat on self-identifying terms vs. common English terms. Note, for example, that English Wikipedia has the self-indentifying Côte d'Ivoire (and not the common English name Ivory Coast), but East Timor (and not the self-identifying term Timor-Leste). Both of these were decided by WP:RM vote. I think that what made the difference for these two votes is that in the first case the French name is and was fairly well spread among English speakers, while in the second case Timor-Leste is used in English, but not fairly well-spread.

Re. the three conditions you propose, I don't think they add something really useful to what there already is. And anyway, they rather belong in Wikipedia:naming conflict than in the common names NC guideline. The common names NC guideline does not name every exception: it only lists some examples in the "Exceptions" section, and further refers to the other "naming conventions" guidelines, which each and all of them have "exceptions" at some level or another to the common names NC guideline (otherwise they would never have needed to be written in the first place).

Re. your second condition, I tried something similar in the wikipedia:naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) guideline proposal (but instead I suggested there'd need to be at least ten reliable sources that used the autonymic version of the word). On the whole, the proposal was not received favorable enough to make it a guideline yet. --Francis Schonken 20:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCO

For example, SCO Group and not SCO (which is "most used" to refer to the SCO Group company).

I think this is a very bad example to use on this page because of what I percive to be the the deliberate obfuscation of "SCO" by the SCO Group of the original The Santa Cruz Operation. There must be hundreds of clearer examples which could be used than this one--Philip Baird Shearer 14:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not your perception is deliberate obfuscation of "SCO" by the SCO Group of the original The Santa Cruz Operation, SCO is strictly speaking "the most common name" for the firm that has "SCO Group" as a more elaborate name.

1. "SCO" is ambiguous (SCO is a disambig page), "SCO group" is not ambiguous;
2. "SCO" lacks precision, neither "The Santa Cruz Operation" nor "SCO group" lack precision;
3. "SCO" doesn't solve the implicit naming conflict (irrespective of whether that "naming conflict" is described in terms of despicable behaviour like Philip does, or whether it is stated the Wikipedia way, referring to wikipedia:naming conflict) - splitting in SCO Group and Tarantella, Inc. (the later name of "The Santa Cruz Operation") solves that naming conflict.

So the example *is* about a "common", "most used" name (SCO) for a company, that also has a more elaborate name, like IBM is abbreviation of International Business Machines, *but with this difference* that in the SCO case the common name is ambiguous, inprecise and conflictuous. The common names guideline says that in that case not the (most) common name or (most) used name should be taken for naming the Wikipedia article, but the "most obvious" name, which in this case is seen as "SCO Group".

Don't reproach the example that it treats an unclear (ambiguous + inprecise + conflictuous) name. That was exactly the intention. If it wasn't "unclear" in that sense, it wouldn't be a good example. It shows how Wikipedia's approach (i.e. applying the guidelines about precision, naming conflicts and disambiguation) solves the unclarity, without needing *moral* categories. It really doesn't matter for Wikipedia which firm are the "good guys" and which firm is perceived as "deliberately obfuscating", the guidelines can be applied without needing to think in these categories, and it's a good thing that the example illustrates that. At least the example doesn't obfuscate anything. It illustrates how unclarity is resolved in Wikipedia context. --Francis Schonken 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad example, at least as currently worded, because the meaning you put into the phrase "most obvious" is far from obvious, as Stefán Ingi discussed with you at some length months ago. Haukur 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I had not seen the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions (common names)/Archive 01#Most obvious?. Francis as more than one person has independently picked up on this, I really think you should reconsider you position as several people have flagged it as an unsound example. As I said before, there must be hundreds of clearer examples which could be used than this one. If a TLA is going to be used what about LSE as both major uses are in use world wide, but have different meanings depending on whether one is working in financial, or the academic and political fields. But this is just one example of many where TLAs cause confusion and it may well not be the best one available. Perhaps Civil War be a better general example, as in countries in which they were fought it tends to have an unqualified meaning, but the phrase needs qualifying for an international readership. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Name Change : "common name" —> "most common use"

JA: The subtitle of this article and many of the uses of "common name" within it conflict with the use of the terms "common name" and "common noun" as distinguished from "proper name" and "proper noun". I think that it would help a bit to be more consistent in the use of terms like "most common name" (MCN) and "most common use" (MCU). Jon Awbrey 20:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

[edit] Pele

Pelé is not a good example to use for common name. The spelling of "Pele" is about 6 times more common than "Pelé" when doing a Google search.

• about 4,690,000 English pages for -Pelé Pele -wikipedia
• about 266,000 English pages for Pelé -Pele -wikipedia

--Philip Baird Shearer 06:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jihad elian

you can redirect to other site using #REDIRECT [[www.hotmail.com]]

[edit] Problems with naming a series of articles

Not sure where to put this I'm posting this here and at RfC for politics. There are several articles about inter-state relations (e.g. Sino-American relations), but no clear naming convention. For instance, why is this article not American-Chinese relations? I have proposed a solution, but I'm not sure what everyone else thinks about it. From Talk:Sino-African relations:

The only thing that makes any sense to me is to take their shortform names in English and use alphabetical order. "African-Chinese relations," "Sino-Russian relations" (from "Chinese," of course), but I'm not sure what to do with America. I guess we would use the shortform name "United States" rather than "America," making "Iranian-American relations" and "American-Vanuatan relations."

There is not a dispute per se about the names, but I suppose I'm not clear on them and there is no obvious standard (although the alphabetical seems obvious to me.) Anyway, can anyone help me out here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone has brought this issue. I posted the same message some months ago but I very little response. As for the titles I though about three issues we should agree on:

• Concerning the title format: should we use Sino-Japanese relations or Foreign relations between Japan and China?
• Concerning the name of the countries: should we use adjectives (Japanese-Korean relations) or nouns (Japan-United States relations)? Which country name (eg: for the United states is it American (Franco-American relations), U.S. (U.S.-Iran relations) or United States (United States-Venezuela relations)?) Same for China (China or Sino?)
• Concerning the order of the countries: Which country should be mentioned first? The best way would be alphabetically, but which country names should we adopt to prevent disputes (eg: American or US?)
• We could add also some issues concerning unrecognised countries.

There should be a separate naming convention guideline for countries' relations, and I'm willing to help. CG 08:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] specific naming convention vs. common names

If the specific naming guidelines for a group of objects is inconsistent with "Use common names", does the specific guideline take priority or does common names take priority? For example, if the simplest name is the actual name of the object and it is unambiguous, should it be required to follow the specific naming guideline? Can some be exempted from a specific naming guideline if the simplest name is unambiguous? This is especially important if the resulting name from the specific naming rule is inaccurate and not the simplest name. I am specifically thinking of the US state highway naming rules and US city naming rules. --Polaron | Talk 01:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• A good question. Ideally, guidelines would be crafted in the first instance not to be inconsistent... Note the for the state routes, there in fact in no convention at present, but rather a poll to determine same currently on-going, so I'd suggest anyone with a view on which should take priority express themselves there. Alai 18:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In relation to the above question and the discussion going on at WP:NC (settlements), I think clarity is needed on whether or not a refering to City, State like Chicago, Illinois or Seattle, Washington is uncommon? My personal view is that City, State is similar to a First, Last name convention like the example I used in the settlements discussion
If my name is Jane Smith then more likely then not I'm going to be called "Jane" more often hen Jane Smith. Around people I know, that's fine. But in every other respect from the name on my credit cards, to legal documents, to applications I fill, etc my public face with be that of "Jane Smith". In the same way a city (like Seattle or Chicago) is known by the common "first name". The more popular you are, the more people you know just like a bigger city is more well known. However, in public presentations (like Scott's example of writing a letter to someone in that city) you will see City, State. Including the "last name" state is not a form of pre-disambiguation, it's simply presenting the public face of that city. It just as correct and I would say just as common as listing a person's first and last name.
Other thoughts? It would be nice to get some consenus on this issue so that it maybe more clearly outlined in the guideline. Agne 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names for ethnic communities living outside the boundaries of their own ethnic state

Currently there's a lot of conflict over this point (see, for example, Talk:Ethnic Mongolians in China, Talk:Chinese Indonesian, Talk:Ethnic Koreans in China, Talk:Chinese Malaysian). We have examples of all of the following patterns, and there's been objections to every single one. (Full disclosure: I'm not an unbiased informant here, I'm personally opposed to standardisation on the American-style model of "Ethnicity, then nationality" and have been going around arguing against it).:

• Ethnicity, then nationality (like Chinese American):. Some people go around trying to standardise all other usages to match this one, even when these are minority usages (e.g. Chinese Malaysian) or not clearly established (Chinese Mongolian, Korean Chinese). There's also conflict over whether usages of this form should be hyphenated or not.
• Nationality, then ethnicity (like British Chinese): Some people complain this is inaccurate and try to standardize as above. Others also complain that this form overemphasizes the foreignness of the ethnic group in question (the ethnicity as a noun, modified by the nationality).
• Non-English names in the language of the ethnic group (like Koryo-saram): Some people complain this usage is not clear to English speakers. It also may lead to conflicts over transcription (e.g. the above spelling, based off of an old romanization, could be updated to use the Revised Romanization spelling "Goryeo-saram"). Also, how members of the ethnic group living outside their country of origin prefer to call themselves may be different from what their co-ethnics back in the mother country call them (in this case, "Goryeo-in").
• Non-English names in the language of the country of residence (like Zainichi Korean): Same problem as above, plus the possible accusation of racism because you're using the "mainstream" name instead of the ethnic group's name in their own ethnic language (Jaeil). Especially when the mainstream name doesn't make any distinction between foreigners and citizens. (E.g. Hoa, which just means "Chinese").
• Ethnic (Group name) in (Country name) (like Ethnic Koreans in China): some people complain that this is too unwieldy, and also it doesn't sufficiently distinguish between Chinese citizens of Korean descent, and Korean citizens living in China. Others assert (usually just based on their own opinion) that "Ethnic Abc" is clearly distinguished from plain old "Abc" (as in Ethnic German). Also this usage does start to look excessively long if you try to think about how to title a page describing the reverse migration of said ethnic group to their country of origin.

Any suggestions? Can other readers here help us to write clearer guidelines regarding this to avoid having to repeat the same debate on every single ethnicity page? cab 04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to standardize. If the US says "Chinese-American" and the UK says "British Chinese", the articles should be at those locations. john k 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree strongly of course. I think the main problem comes when there is no usual term in English for referring to to the given population; then someone makes an arbitrary decision, usually by analogy either to Chinese American or to British Chinese (e.g. Israeli Chinese, Chinese Cayman Islander), and someone else disagrees with it ... my argument is that both of these violate Wikipedia:No original research by introducing new terms/new definitions of existing terms, and that the page title should be something descriptive instead (e.g. "Chinese in the Cayman Islands"), but is that the proper interpretation? Usually the counter-argument is that a "reasonable person" would expect to find the page at the pre-existing location. cab 00:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are right. And why would somebody expect Chinese Cayman Islander, anyway, if there's no reliable sources that use the term? john k 12:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but we actually need to come up with a standardized form because it will be so confusing to people when they see terms like Chinese-American and American-Chinese. Is 'American-Chinese' a Chinese of American heritage (which is very odd) or what is it? People must decide to conform to ONE method either the American way or the British way or whatever way. I don't see anything wrong of conforming to the US method of ethnicity as an adjective and then nationality second. In most cases, it makes the most sense! I don't see why many people have such a huge problem with that when, in the end, it's one of the most sensical systems when it comes to these ethno-national terms. I think it's just because a lot of people have this usual bias for the British method solely for the fact that people do not want to be conforming to American English methods (even if they do come up with practical and logical ways). People just refuse to budge purely because it is the 'American' way. Many people would prefer to follow the so-called 'correct' British system or as long as it is 'not American'. So therefore, people should just finally resolve this issue and settle on the US standard method. 'Ethnicity then your nationality'.. what is so impractical about that??? I mean come on. If you are an American of Chinese descent, then your nationality is American and as an adjective-marker, your heritage which makes you DIFFERENT from other Americans of different ancestries, which makes you distinct from English Americans or African Americans is 'Chinese'. I think people here get carried away with this because they are arguing from the point of view of personal feelings of what an ethnic or national group might see themselves as. We are not here to argue about that. We are here to come up with an objective (NOT subjective) method of naming ethnic groups outside their respective 'ethnic states' regardless of whether a Chinese-American feels that he is only Chinese or whether a German of Turkish descent feels he is as German as the majority ethnic Germans. There is a clear line between personal feelings of ethnicity and nationality (hence influencing some people's reasons here) AND coming up with a logical naming method.

[edit] Conflict with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)

Recent requested moves has exposed a conflicted application of the Common Name convention and other pertinent policies--most notably WP:NC(P) but also English language compromises, current consenus on City naming conventions, and Japanese place names. The application of Common names being used is essentially that what is most common in Google or US usage should be the title of the article, irregardless of whether or not redirects already cover any practical, common phrasings.
I think there is flaws in this application and the conflict this application is creating is being felt in several naming conventions and article moves. Rather then conflict with WP:NC(precision) and MoS, the "Common name" guideline is meant to work in unision with these other guidelines. I think consideration should be made to clarify this guideline so that it works in better partnership with other guidelines. Agne 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on possible revision

I would like to get a broad consensus on what would be the best way to clarify the guideline. Some of my thoughts include,

• Expand the "Don't overdo it" Section-While on the surface it seems self-evident, I think a reference should be made to WP:NC(P) and WP:MOS noting that this guideline isn't meant to trump these other guidelines. While there is already examples in the section like tidal wave, I do think we need expand on the fact that the most common name is not always the best and most encyclopedic title.
• Accentuate the positive use of Redirects-I think the current state of the guidelines gives an undue negative impression of redirects and downplays their very practical use. If the main concern with using a common name is for ease of search and linking, the redirects are of immense benefit in melding the practical use of WP:NC(CN) with the encyclopedic style of WP:NC(P), naming conventions and WP:MOS. It really eliminates the heart of most conflicts with this guideline. This positive and practical benefit of redirects should be highlighted more.
• Striving for consistency should be featured prominently-The one common goal that we all have is the desire to create a quality encyclopedia and the striving for consistency is vital to that goal. We must always be mindful of the presentation that our articles give. To use the current guideline example of King Billy, while that name is certainly quite common it would not be the best presentation to have the article on William III be titled that. However, as a redirect this common name works fabulously and exhibits an advantage that Wikipedia has over paper encyclopedia in that we can have the best of both worlds. Consistency in presentation and practical use of common names. There is no reason why the "Common name" guideline should conflict with consistency and I think this needs to be made clearer in the guideline. Agne 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Doesn't the nutshell explanation at the top of this page pretty much establish (common names) as the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to naming conventions by stating "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things"? If that is so, perhaps in addition to the expansion proposed above, that should be expanded upon as well. Basically, common names is the floor of the naming conventions (don't call an article on William III "The dude that was King of England") while the other naming conventions build upon common names. --Bobblehead 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly an easy interpretation to make with the article. My first reading of the naming convention guideline, lead me to believe that you should use the most encyclopedic title--not neccesarily the most common or scientific. However, it appears that there is enough gray in the guideline that some could pull an interpretation out that Common Names should be elevated above all other policy. As recent events have shown, this conflicts with other policies and convention to cause quite a bit of strife. I do think some revision should be made to clear up the conflict and confusion. To what extent needs to be determined. Agne 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "use common name" is whose common name do you use? Especially when it comes to things, this problem arose over the Sega Mega Drive. The Mega Drive was released in Japan and sold around the world as the Mega Drive except for North America where it was renamed Sega CD. There have been a lot of tussles about the article name for quite a while, all of which can be basically boiled down to the North Americans saying "Sega CD is our common name for it" and the Rest of the English speaking World saying "But Mega Drive is our common name for it". Saying use the common name only works in certain cases. I think the naming comvention for products should be that the article is the original name of the product when it is first released and that any subsequent name changes should be redirects. Name changes are a part of the original products history and should be recorded in it. - X201 22:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What conflict?

All of the examples given in WP:NC(P) are consistent with WP:NC(CN) and vice versa. In addition, WP:NC(P) even states, "If a consensus is impossible to reach on precision, go with the rule of thumb, and use the more popular phrase." (See: WP:NC(P)#Conflicts over precision). All titles should, and can be, consistent with both WP:NC(CN) and WP:NC(P). There is no conflict. --Serge 23:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you note that the most popular usage is refering to consensus among editors (after consultation with a dictionary and so forth) and not the "Common usage" in manner you have been advocating. There are many ways where the undue elevation of this application of Common names conflicts with other guidelines (and most have been noted above and new very pertinent example like with the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive debate). The conflict is quite needless since redirects do give us the best of both worlds and allows the Common Names guideline to work seemlessly with all other guidelines and conventions, instead of butting heads.

As an addition conflict example. Under the application of Common Names that you have advocated recently, Oprah Winfrey should be titled just Oprah since that is by far the most common name that she is referred to in the general public. ("on the next Oprah.."). However, since Oprah doesn't professionally present herself as a one name moniker. ("Hi, this is Oprah Winfrey") unlike Cher or Madonna, for the sake of consistency we have the article titled "Oprah Winfrey" and a redirect of the common usage "Oprah".Agne 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of what Agne's says is correct. I think that consistency throughout the official naming of the articles is important, but also think that they should be accessible through their more common names for convenience's sake. Doing more to emphasize the possibility and usefulness of redirects will help that.

The fact that there have been heated debates over moving articles to what someone feels is a more common name, makes it clear that there is some level of conflict there. People are attached to what they believe the common name is, it's not easy to convince them that someone else's idea is "better" - The Bethling 08:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of naming conventions guidelines, see for example category:wikipedia naming conventions. All of these at some level or another make exceptions to the "common names" principle (if they didn't, they could simply be folded in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), couldn't they?) Where the heck is the problem? Oh, I see, none of you ever came to reading the "Exceptions" section of the "common names" NC guideline, where all this is neatly explained. --Francis Schonken 08:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is using common names is a principle guideline and one that should never be ignored entirely. Examples like Oprah v.s. Oprah Winfrey miss the point - both are common names used to refer to her. Use of either does not violate the guideline. But using a contrived title that almost no one ever uses, like Hollywood, Los Angeles, California for Hollywood, Fixed-wing aircraft for airplane or Ice lollipop (proposed) for Popsicle is something else again, and is a blatant violation of this guideline. Also, redirection does not address this issue at all, because it's not about helping anyone find the article, it's about what we convey about the name of the subject through the title once they reach the article, regardless of how they got there. --Serge 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Serge, you're missing the other point. (CN) is not the top of the pecking order in naming conventions, it is the bottom of the pecking order. It's the minimum threshold that an article name has to meet in order to be an acceptable name for the article. In the case of cities the naming convention that supersedes (CN) is (settlements), in the case of Hollywood there isn't an official agreed upon format for neighborhood titles, but there is an unofficial format of <neighborhood>, <city>, <state>. It's a bit clunky, yes, and is the most apt to being open for change. As for fixed-wing aircraft, there is WP:MOS#National varieties of English, which states that a contrived substitute is acceptable when dueling spellings are applicable to an article name. Fixed-wing aircraft is also listed as an exception in the exception section of (CN). Popsicle appears to violate (CN) in that the name is actually the name of a product in addition to the generic reference to flavored ice on a stick in North America. Basically the equivalent of having the article on facial tissue(620,000 Google count) named Kleenex(4,830,000 Google count). --Bobblehead 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Bobblehead, this is not how I understand "common name" at all. I've always understood naming conventions on wikipedia to be based on a number of bedrock principles. Where possible, we'd like to name an article by the most common name, which is accurate, precise, and consistent with article names on similar subjects. The problem is that these four principles don't always work together properly. The more specific naming conventions are a way to try to reconcile these various principles when they come into conflict. Since accuracy rarely comes into it (although it certainly does occasionally - witness that our article on the UK is not at England), the issue is usually figuring out what to do when the common name is ambiguous (i.e., not precise), or else with trying to make naming consistent. But sometimes we have come up with naming conventions that seem to exist for no particularly relevant reason among these different considerations. I don't think having an article called Los Angeles, California is justified by any of the more basic naming considerations - even the seemingly strong argument on the basis of consistency falls apart when you look at Los Angeles in context not with other US cities, but with other world cities of comparable size. The issue isn't that "common names" must never be tampered with, it's that there should be some good competing principle as to why we should do so. john k 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

John, thank you for stating so clearly what I've been trying to say. --Serge 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, then perhaps there is a need to rewrite the nutshell and exception section of (CN). As it is currently written, both areas seem to indicate that common names is the minimum threshhold needed to name an article in wikipedia and that when (CN) conflicts with other accepted naming conventions then it is the other naming convention that should be used. It's the equivalent of the federal government setting a federal minimum wage and then individual states can either adopt the federal minimum wage, or set a higher state minimum wage. Just in this case you have (CN) setting the minimum naming convention and then other subject areas setting a higher minimum naming convention. --Bobblehead 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Bobblehead, I fully agree that when CN conflicts with other accepted naming conventions, the other naming convention should be used. My issue is that more specific naming conventions shouldn't be made up out of thin air. There should be some actual more basic policy supporting them, or else they're completely arbitrary. Any specific naming policy should try to reconcile more basic principles like common names, precision, accuracy, and consistency. A naming convention which is completely arbitrary isn't a valid one. In actual discussions of specific naming policy, this is always what is being debated - how to reconcile a specific naming convention with various more general naming principles. john k 12:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. For example, what principles form the basis for contrived out-of-thin-air article formats like [[city, state]], [[community, city, state]], and article names like Fixed-wing aircraft and ice lollipop (proposal thankfully defeated), all of which violate the common names convention? --Serge 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So here's the discussion going along all reasonable like, and Serge says something both inflamatory and ridiculous like calling the city, state naming convention "contrived out-of-thin-air". It is rhetoric like that which makes it difficult to make progress in resolving issues that most editors seem to agree are at present unsatisfactory. I actually agree with him that the "community, city, state" convention is less than ideal (but I don't particularly care enough about that limited issue to get worked up about it). Almost not worth mentioning, but the proposal to move popcicle to ice lollipop was not technically "defeated" -- the votes were sufficient to move the article, but a better solution presented itself making the move unnecessary. older ≠ wiser 18:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by "contrived out of thin air" with respect to the "city, state" format was not to be inflammatory, but to say that there is no basis in principle for using that format (or any format) on city articles, especially those without ambiguity issues. If I'm wrong about that, it should be easy enough to cite the principles that form the basis I claim is not there. --Serge 01:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

John K, all naming conventions are made up out of thin air and in most cases, there is a logical and generally arbitrary basis for why the naming convention was adopted. As an example, why have the article on Oprah Winfrey at Oprah Winfrey when Oprah is the name by which she is most commonly known? Because the convention for famous people is to use first and last name unless the person is only known by one name. Oprah isn't an article name that would conflict with another Oprah (I can't think of anyone else with the name Oprah that is worthy of an article), so under (CN) then her article should be under Oprah, but yet, there it is, under Oprah Winfrey. All in all, the way that (CN) is currently written, there isn't a conflict between the general and the specific, the specific wins out, or at least, it appears to me that it does. Now, question is, how to reconcile those that thing of (CN) as essentially the minimum threshhold and those that see it as the "bedrock". --Bobblehead 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How is whether one particular article title is named Oprah or Oprah Winfrey an example of how there is a logical and generally arbitrary basis for why in most cases each naming convention (not article title) was adopted? --Serge 04:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

(outdent)Ahhhh. I have been accused of having half a conversation in my head and appears this is one of those cases. The intent of the example was that an arbitrary decision was made to name articles of famous people (first name <middle if necessary> last name) unless they went by a single name instead of leaving the naming up to (CN). The logical comes into play in that (First <MI> Last) is a valid name for the person and naming the article that way will not cause indigestion among most editors/readers. There is also value in maintaining consistency throughout the encyclopedia. --Bobblehead 05:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

On what basis do we say that "Oprah" is most common usage? My understanding of "common usage" generally takes it to mean "common usage in reliable sources." Oprah's show is called "The Oprah Winfrey show." I'd imagine most references to her in the respectable press call her "Oprah Winfrey," rather than simply "Oprah." There are of course issues as to how to interpret "common name," but there are perfectly good reasons to have the article on Oprah at Oprah Winfrey (consistency is another one). So, again, my point is not that "common names" can never be violated. It can be, if there's some good reason (precision, consistency, whatever) to do so. And I also think "most common name" should be interpreted in a relatively narrow sense in terms of usage in reliable sources, not overall usage. How often is Oprah referred to on a first reference in print as just "Oprah"? Probably in tabloids, but that's about all I would guess. john k 13:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Google News oprah -winfrey: 1910 hits, out of 5690 total for oprah. So it's not the #1 usage, but it still forms a big chunk. cab 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends, if you use a pure google search, which is a favorite of Serge, Oprah -Winfrey gets 48.9 million hits while "Oprah Winfrey" gets 5.8 million. But all in all, it sounds like any way you want to interpret (CN) it needs to be rewritten. Either to establish itself as the threshold naming convention with all others superceding it, or as a bedrock with the others being used based on certain criteria. --Bobblehead 16:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rule change

I would like to propose that the common names convention should take a back seat to situations when an organization gives an official name. We've been currently discussing this issue informally at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) with regard to Ohio State University vs. The Ohio State University. But the problem is more of a plague throughout Wikipedia.

• Nobel Prize in Economics is incorrect. While it meets "common names," it is not the official name given by the Nobel Foundation. Under this proposal, it would be renamed to Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (now redirects to Nobel Prize in Economics).
• My alma mater, Rutgers University, hasn't been known by that name since 1956 (or possibly 1945), it would be moved to Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (now a redirect to Rutgers University)
• Trinity College, Dublin is officially called Provost, Fellows and Scholars of the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin but, they use and give the name Trinity College, Dublin and under this proposal, it would not change (perhaps though to establish a redirect from the long form of the name).

Under this proposal, if accepted, the following exception would be rendered as part of the Naming conventions (common names):

1. An organization's official given name for the article subject should (trump/surpass/provide an exception to) the "Common Names."
2. A "common name" should redirect to the official given name of the subject used by its governing organization.

Rationale: Accuracy should trump over "common names" when the organization that is the subject of the article uses a name that is not the popular (often uninformed) "common name."

Note also this is just a proposal. I'd first like to discuss this at length and flesh the issue out, after which it can be put to a well-publicized official straw poll.

There are bright spots on the horizon, I noticed that several pages do use official given names from an organization. For instance, Poet Laureate of the United States the popular, though incorrect, common name redirects to the official given name, Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress. —ExplorerCDT 21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Before you get all worked up about this,

1. Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Exceptions. In short: if another Naming conventions guideline (e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)) makes an exception to the "common names" principle, that goes above the "common names" principle. Currently, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) makes exception to the common names principle w.r.t. university names (otherwise, why would they need to be mentioned in that guideline, or, why would there be need for that guideline at all, if all that would have been covered by the "common names" principle all by itself? - we would have been quite foolish to write all those other naming conventions guidelines, if it could all be resumed to "common name") - so, whatever else, or contradictory, you put in the definite & indefinite articles guideline, no need to change the content of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), it is subordinate to these other more specific guidelines.
2. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns, if, for a proper name both "Current undisputed official name of entity" and "Current self-identifying name of entity" are identical, and differ from the "common name in English", that guideline trumps the common names principle. That's what happens for Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress. That's what doesn't happen for Nobel Prize in Economics ("self-identifying" name is in Swedish; the "official name" might be different in English and Swedish, and maybe there isn't even an "official" English translation of the name: depends on whether, for instance, "Sveriges" in the official Swedish name is translated to "Swedish" in English or is just kept as "Sveriges" while it is part of a proper name - the name of a Swedish bank - within the name of the prize).

In sum, there's no reason to change the "common names" guideline, not even when any other naming conventions guideline would change (the other guideline would always surpass the common names guideline, without needing to be listed here). And for changing these other naming conventions guidelines, you're at the wrong talk page. --Francis Schonken 22:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would need better examples to be convinced. Why replace short, usable names with incredibly long, virtually meaningless names? We should be leaning towards short names that people can easily remember. And a farm of redirects to help people get there. Stevage 23:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this is unnecessessary, and a violation of the principle of least astonishment. As long as there are redirects, everything is fine. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 23:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The "common names" principle has been in use for a long time. This doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't change, but it does mean that changing it would require a lot of work to implement (how many page moves to existing redirection pages? How many of the existing redirect will have a significant history that will need to be merged?), and the inertia of the "old way" will be difficult to overcome. And I can't really see the necessity of changing it now. –RHolton≡– 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no, NO!

At least, not onless you're very careful about how you word it so that it doesn't apply to Japanese animation and manga.

Because Japanese animation and manga first come out in Japan, and American fans 1) get information from Japan before the official American release, and 2) unofficially translate them before the official American release, there is a situation where the "official" name (i.e. the name which the American licensor has changed it to) is not the same as the "common" name (i.e. the name by which it was originally known in Japan, which remains well-known in America). Generally, when this happens, we create the article using the common name (which is the original Japanese name).

Your proposed rule would imply that when the American licensor changes the name of something we must use the changed name no matter what.

This is an extremely bad idea.

The difference between this and your examples, of course, is that in your examples the organization's name is more accurate and the common name is less accurate. The common name for anime/manga with changed names is actually more accurate in a sense.

I don't see much of a way around this except to precisely define what an "organization" is or to add something like "this rule only applies if the organization has designated a name for world-wide use". Ken Arromdee 15:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Another Name Dispute: Hunter × Hunter. Ken Arromdee 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And Talk:Roronoa_Zoro#Requested_move. Ken Arromdee 21:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice for Grand Street (Brooklyn)?

The road is named Grand Street in Brooklyn and Grand Avenue in Queens. Can you suggest a good name? Thank you. --NE2 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Union Jack

Hi. This evening, I closed a move request, moving the Union Flag article to Union Jack, as the latter is the more common name. I referenced this guideline in my reasoning. Another editor, at Talk:Union Jack#requested move: seriously? is arguing that the article ought to fall under the Tsunami/Tidal wave exception, because "Union Jack" is a misleading name, the term "jack" only applying to flags used in certain contexts at sea.

I'm posting here to see what others think about this case. Anybody with thoughts on the matter, please come join us at Talk:Union Jack and help determine the best way to handle the situation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of exceptions

It would be nice if we had a list, maybe even a bulleted list, of conventions which provide exceptions. It would have to provide a catchall clause, and a link to the special page with everything which starts with Naming conventions; but the discussion at Talk:Joshua A. Norton shows we need some way for a non-maven to see what isn't an exception. (Yes, the answer is "nearly everything", but try convincing a newbie of that ;->) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does this policy apply to places?

On Template talk:History of Manchuria, one editor wrote: "The WP:NC(CN) is not relevant here because it is about common name of a 'person' or 'thing'". I've never heard this point made before. Is this correct?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The convention did specifically say it deals with 'person' or 'thing'. In addition all the examples are about 'person' or 'thing'. There are WP:NCGN and WP:PLACES which specifically deals with names of region and places.

Wiki Pokemon 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out WP:NCGN, which seems to say that "common names" does apply: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these apply, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used."—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions for Infoboxes and Persondata boxes

This may be explained somewhere but it is hard - or I find it hard - to find specific things in the Wiki guidelines etc. I understand and agree with the common naming conventions for article names, with the full name then being included in the beginning of the article itself BUT which name is used in the main name field of the Infobox and Persondata boxes? I've seen both used, even in the examples shown in the Naming convention pages eg Tony Blair is Tony Blair in the Infobox (not Anthony etc etc) BUT Bill Clinton has his full (William etc etc) name in the Infobox. Also Sea Cucumbers has Sea Cucumbers in its infobox, not the scientific name. If the Infobox and Persondata boxes are there for search and retrieval purposes I would expect them to have the same naming conventions as is used for articles but is there a guideline anywhere about this? Sterry2607 05:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Initials in names

This page seems to suggest that the consensus for periods in names is to put a space between them (e.g., H. G. Wells). There was a recent topic open at the Villege Pump about this issue, and, well it was a small sample size, there was no conesnsus about what should be the default guideline. Topic at the VP can be found at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Naming_Conventions:_Abbreviations. This question is prompted by recent page moves by Koavf (talk · contribs) who moved thousands of pages recently, quite a number based on this one exception listed here. I suggest we once again revisit this issue. Pepsidrinka 01:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common name vs. correct name

I have come across several debates as to whether or not a common name is correct on Wikipedia as opposed to the correct name (in some cases they conflict). Which one should be followed? A guideline like this, I think, should be added into the page. Reginmund 01:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "correct name"? "Correct" is a subjective term. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, the Millenium Dome recently changed ownership, and subsequently changed its name. Some stubborn Wikipedians are voting against changing the old (and incorrect) name to the new name because they allege that it goes against the Common Name Policy. However, it seems that the correct name should come first, especially when the alleged common name is incorrect. Reginmund 02:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... if the common name is "Northwest Parkway", but the legislature assigned an official name of "Asian-Canadian World War III Veterans Memorial Highway", we'd hopefully keep it at the former, even if it is technically "incorrect". I don't know enough about the Millennium Dome case to opine; what does the media use? I find that generally the public follows the media, but if the media doesn't change the public probably won't. --NE2 20:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Common name tends to win out over the correct name, ie Brian Warner is at Marilyn Manson and not his real name. For your current example, I'd just give it time. As NE2 said, as the media begins to refer to it as The O2, slowly but surely that will become the common name. Until then, grin and bear it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But that is his stage name! It addresses his work as a musician and as a musician, he is known as Marilyn Manson. Reginmund 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and as a landmark, the object in London is known as the Millennium Dome. We don't do "correct" names; it would usually involve us, in short order, in trying to decide who has the authority to decide which name is correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm try... the people who named it The O2. Reginmund 06:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Opening up this discussion again, what about the case of "Nobel Prize in Economics" vs "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel"? "Nobel Prize in Economics" is an incorrect name as the prize is not a Nobel Prize. The Nobel Prizes are defined by Alfred Nobel's will. Thus the Prize in Economic Sciences can't be a Nobel Prize since it was created by someone else, i.e., Bank of Sweden. However, the Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded at the same ceremony as the Nobel Prizes in Stockholm. Although inaccurate, the "Nobel Prize in Economics" is the common name used in the media (and the public), probably because the official name (Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel) is really long and no one wants to write it. There has been an on-going debate/war over how the Prize in Economic Sciences shouldn't be called a Nobel Prize, both on its talk page and in the media. Is Wikipedia's policy to use the incorrect, common name anyway? The danger with using the incorrect name is that Wikipedia would then be spreading misinformation. There is at least one user here who has claimed that since this common name is used in other places on the web and the econ prize is counted as a Nobel prize there, it is a valid reason to include the economics prize as a Nobel Prize in the Nobel Prize article here, regardless of the fact the Nobel Foundation never calls it a Nobel Prize. (The rationale was that the Prize in Economics was listed under a heading for Nobel Prizes on the Nobel Foundation website + there was an article on the web listing it as a Nobel Prize, thus it must be a Nobel Prize.) –panda 18:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me we've got it just right in Nobel Prize in Economics. The page title should be the common name, with a redirect from the "true" name. Then, the article should first use the "true" name, and immediately describe the common name and why it's the common name. The situation at Nobel Prize is more difficult, but it's a content issue, not really a naming issue. My feeling is that it should definitely be covered at Nobel Prize, since that's how most people know it, but it should be quite clear from the article what the actual situation is. –RHolton≡– 19:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If the issue at Nobel Prize is a content issue, how do you deal with it? The user has a source for their statement and there are no sources from the Nobel Foundation stating that its not a Nobel Prize (they just never not call it a Nobel Prize) -- obviously there will never be a source for something that is not stated. So now what? If I edit the page to clarify that the Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize, that user will simply revert it stating they have a reference showing that it is. –panda 20:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on the Nobel prizes and related issues. If it is listed as a Nobel Prize on the Nobel Prize web page, perhaps you are fighting a losing battle, especially if you can find no source to back up your point of view. In any event, this forum is unlikely to be fruitful for you. Perhaps WP:RFC? –RHolton≡– 20:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Going back to NC, do any of the following rationales apply as reasons against using the common name in this case? If not, why? (I'm trying to understand policy here.) I posted the following comments to a survey but for the most part, no one has responded to them:

• WP:NC(CN)#Do not overdo it. Nobel Prize in Economics is misleading since it implies it is a Nobel Prize. The title is also offensive to Peter Nobel and the Nobel family, who have asked on more than one occasion to not call the Prize in Economics a Nobel Prize.[1][2]Swedish newspaper article (The Swedish article quotes him as saying "Stop calling the economics prize a Nobel Prize" as well as his and others' objections with the prize in general. There's been more coverage of this in the Swedish press, but it's not available on the web for some reason.)
• WP:NC(P)#Conflicts over precision According to M-W, [3], the Nobel Prize is defined as "any of various annual prizes (as in peace, literature, medicine) established by the will of Alfred Nobel for the encouragement of persons who work for the interests of humanity -- called also Nobel". This would exclude using the title "Nobel Prize in Economics" since it wasn't established by Alfred Nobel's will. (It was established by the Bank of Sweden.)
• WP:NPOV#Article naming "Nobel Prize in Economics" expresses a non-neutral POV that the economics prize is a Nobel Prize, which many object to.

–panda 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you followed the link to Wikipedia:Naming conflict? There are good guidelines there for resolving this sort of conflict.–RHolton≡– 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Another question... If there are two variants of the "current undisputed official name of entity" (both mean the same thing, it's just that one is Swenglish while the other is pure English, kind of like German Reich vs German Empire), do both count as the current undisputed official name of the entity? The examples here are "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" and "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". They are translations of each other and AFAIK no one disputes that they are both considered the official name for the Prize in Economics. –panda 00:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titles

Does it go without saying that articles on published works should always be titled according to that work's title, as opposed to the name it is most commonly known by? Is The White Album to be considered an example of the correct form? -Freekee 03:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not always. See Gulliver's Travels. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Search engine test

The following statement in "See also" may need modification: "Wikipedia:Google test - Search engine testing might in some cases assist in discerning which of two alternative versions of a name is more common." After doing a quick comparison of results with other users in a survey, we've discovered that Google gives different hit numbers to different users, even for the same url. Besides the obvious point that not all search results may be relevant, the results of our tests make me question the validity of stating that a Google test might assist in discerning which name is more common when the results are unreliable. While I think the link to Wikipedia:Search engine test should be kept, I think the statement "Search engine testing might in some cases assist in discerning which of two alternative versions of a name is more common" should be removed since the article Wikipedia:Search engine test does a much better explanation of how to interpret results from a search test than a single sentence can convey. –panda 04:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Names and titles" exception

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#How to proceed --Francis Schonken 09:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name

An RFC on content related to this convention has been opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal nicknames

A discussion at Talk:World War I has raised an issue begging for a guideline: controversial nicknames. In the case at hand, a historically-used nickname of an individual (US General Jack Pershing) is now considered offensive by modern sensibilities and has been bowdlerized. Editor might use the historically accurate name, the widely accepted bowdlerized version, just the simplified name, or the legal name. Comments? LeadSongDog (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As per my comments at the World War I talk page, I don't believe this particular instance needs a MoS guideline. It's a specific instance where a nickname is totally unrelated to the article (i.e., Pershing wasn't given the nickname in question because of the war, etc.), therefore, it is totally irrelevant to the subject and shouldn't be included. It is, of course, directly relevant to John J. Pershing, and probably to 10th Cavalry Regiment (United States) (the unit Pershing commanded that was the cause for the nickname). If we were to have a guideline for nicknames, I think it should be "if it's relevant, include it, if not, can it". Parsecboy (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does "common names" refer to "most common usage?"

In this discussion and elsewhere, an editor argues that it is valid to use "circumcision" as the title of an article which bars the discussion of the circumcision of females, because "circumcision" is the common name for the concept of the circumcision of males (the topic under discussion). I argue that this conflicts with this guideline (among others), because it creates an ambiguity, and incorrectly or at least non-neutrally implies that the circumcision of females does not fall under the general concept of circumcision. I am under the impression that the goal of this guideline was to avoid overly-scientific or technical names for concepts where simpler and more widely-known names exist. Am I wrong and does this guideline also mean that a common, expedient name for one specific concept overrides a rigourous definition of the general concept? Opinions and comments welcome, and thank you. Blackworm (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV shows

If a TV show changed its name while still on the air, should we continue using the old title? If so, how long would it be before the new title would be considered more common? This is in regards to WWE Friday Night SmackDown! (though there are other shows I know that could be affected). The show has always had a "!" since it premiered in August 1999, but seems to have dropped it as of tonights episode. There is a current more request and I was wondering what applies here, I should also point out that the show was originally called "WWF SmackDown!" from August 1999-May 2002 (when the WWF was legally forced to stop using those initials, so they changed their name to WWE), then "WWE SmackDown!" from May 2002-September 2006, and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown!" from Setpember 2006 until today. TJ Spyke 09:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Currency name guidelines

Current guidelines at WP:WikiProject Numismatics that call for currency articles to be at their native rather than English names appear to be an attempt to supersede WP:UCN. Please discuss proposed changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style#Guidelines change proposal. — AjaxSmack 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict

I just now removed the phrase "that does not conflict with..." from the lead sentence and the nutshell. This guideline and the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline should be complementary. Instead the "does not conflict with" statement is causing political warriors to deny that article names can ever conflict. Without the statement, this article points to the exceptions section, where I have written an extra statement pointing to the naming conflict guideline.

If this is too bold, please discuss. Drop a line on my talk page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think the reason that "does not conflict" was on there was to avoid confusion. Consider Maryland Route 2 for example. "Route 2" is the most common name for it, but we can't use that name, because it conflicts, so instead we use the most common name which doesn't conflict, "Maryland Route 2". I think without making that clear on this page, people will think that that article should be located at Route 2 (Maryland). That, of course, would be in violation of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic, which explicitly states that parentheses should be avoided. I've seen people who misunderstood this naming convention use it as an argument to move articles to titles that used parentheses because the non-parenthesized portion in their suggested title was the "most common name". If it's not clearly stated here that we should only use the most common name that doesn't conflict, the problem will only get worse.-Jeff ^(talk) 16:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the "does not conflict part" disagrees with WP:NCON, as that guideline says that when one name conflicts with the name of something else, to consult WP:DAB. WP:DAB#Specific topic says that if another name exists for the topic in question, that does not conflict with the name of something else, then that name should be used. In other words, "use the most common name that does not conflict". I think I gave this long enough and got no response, so I'll go ahead and add the "does not conflict" parts back in for now, unless someone has a strong argument for removing or rewording them.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan (model) -> Katie Price -> Kate André

Jordan (Katie Price) has been moved without any discussion to Katie André. Although there has been talk in unreliable sources of her now using her married name - Katie André - this has not been confirmed and she will still be know to most people as Jordan or Katie Price. Please can someone who knows what they are doing have a look and revert if necessary. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)